Help needed to appeal Mandatory Criteria (Exceptional Promise)

[hilory]

I applied for the Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Promise route last week, and I received a decision from the Home Office just seven days later. Unfortunately, the application was not endorsed, as I did not meet the Mandatory Criteria (MC), although I was successful in meeting OC2 and OC3.

I’ve received detailed feedback from Tech Nation and, after reviewing it, I believe there is a fair chance I can appeal the decision. I’m currently drafting my appeal and would truly appreciate any help, insights, or suggestions from the community.

My MC Evidence Summary

Evidence 1 – Leadership at a Product-led Fintech Company

• I demonstrated my leadership role at a YC-backed fintech startup (>$4M raised).
• Evidence included team leadership, recruitment responsibilities, and key engineering initiatives.

Evidence 2 – Award & Public Recognition

• Award: I received an award shared by professionals across Nigeria, a few African countries and Nigerians living in diaspora. I listed notable past recipients and linked to their LinkedIn profiles for context.
• The award is covered in several media outlets, with recipients frequently recognised through press releases.
• Media Interview: I was featured in a leading national publication discussing fintech trends and the impact of my work.

Evidence 3 – Technical Speaking Engagements

• I spoke at two physical DevFest events:
  • DevFest 1 (1,000+ attendees)
  • DevFest 2 (300+ attendees)

Evidence 4 – Senior Contributor to Industry-led Event

• I supported the organisation of a well-known national tech event sponsored by Mastercard, Uber, and others over the years.
• Showed evidence of my contributions
• Included a screenshot of public recognition alongside three others in a media article.

Tech Nation Feedback:

What is the best way to tackle the appeal? These are a few things I think I should defend as per the feedback.

• Recency of Award:
  I included a screenshot and a link that I was first nominated 11 months ago on LinkedIn. I believe this demonstrates sustained recognition, not just recent success.

• Relevance of the Award:
  I can expand on its media reach, international recognition, and track record of impactful recipients, with references to past winners and publications.

• Vanguard Feature:
  Still considering the best way to demonstrate its national reach or significance. Any tips on this would help.

• DevFest Speaking:
  I plan to emphasise that DevFest is a Google Developer Group (GDG) event, and that my talks — “From Good to Great: Unlocking Peak Performance in a Startup Environment” and “Understanding AI: Fields, Application and Everyday Impact” — address critical topics like startup performance and AI literacy, both relevant to tech advancement.

• Event Contribution Recognition:
  Should I simply highlight the media shoutout screenshot again, or expand on my specific role and impact at the event?

• Leadership at a Product-led Startup:
  Can I make any point on this?

General Observation
In the feedback, the reviewer stated multiple times that “this alone wouldn’t be sufficient.” I understand that, but can I respectfully highlight in my appeal that, per Tech Nation’s own guidance, evidence should be evaluated collectively, not in isolation, to demonstrate recognition as a future leader.

Additionally, the fact that I was successfully awarded OC2 (contributions beyond my job) and OC3 (contributions within my job) shows that I am making significant, ongoing contributions across both professional and community spheres. I believe this holistic impact is exactly what defines an emerging industry leader, someone who is not only technically strong, but also shaping and supporting the wider tech ecosystem.

Please, I would appreciate any help @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi

[gk_shan]

Having OC2 & OC3 positive is great but MC is mandatory by definition. I’d look at tackling what they’ve highlighted as insufficient rather than over indexing on what’s marked positive.

Addressing Your Appeal Points:

• Recency of Award: Good point to highlight the nomination process over 11 months to argue sustained recognition.
• Relevance of Award: Crucial to expand on media reach (provide metrics if possible), international recognition, and past recipients’ prominence to demonstrate it’s a meaningful award at the required level for EP/ET.
• Vanguard Feature: Research Vanguard’s reach/circulation data and include it. Explain why being featured signifies national recognition of your expertise or potential leadership.
• DevFest Speaking: Emphasizing GDG affiliation is good. For the talks, articulate how the content (startup performance, AI literacy) demonstrates your expertise or potential to shape the tech field, not just inform.
• Event Contribution Recognition: Definitely expand on your specific role and impact in organizing the event, not just the media shoutout. Provide evidence from organizers detailing your leadership/contribution.
• Leadership at Startup: As noted in the feedback, internal leadership needs external validation or recognition to count for MC. If possible, find external evidence (media, investor comments) that recognized the leadership of the team/project you were part of, and clearly link your role to that recognized leadership.

Good luck!

[hilory]

Hi @gk_shan
Thank you for your response. I will consider all you’ve said.

Also, I think you mixed my response with another prepared for someone else.

[gk_shan]

My bad, I wrongly pasted a previous comment that I added.

[hilory]

@pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi Please any comments?

[Francisca_Chiedu]

I think you can appeal this, as someone who is consider early stage in their career, these are significant evidence you have potential. What exactly did you submit as team leadership, was there reference letter from your company to bank your claims? The award is indeed recent but you can demonstrate that it is a supplementary evidence that demonstrates your leadership and you were nominated almost a year before your application. Also talk about the speaking engagement that the tech nation guide didn’t say you have to be a keynote speaker and the guidance does not specify that the conference topic have to be core technical. You can share our share insight and thought leadership relating to AI also show you submitted two speaking event to show your consistent contribution. Also highlight that you Uber and MasterCard industry led projects were not taken in to account. How you frame your argue will determine if this will be successful. I think you have a chance, good luck.

PS: can you list what you shared in OC2 and OC3, this may further point if the overall application is strong.

[hilory]

Thank you for your contribution @Francisca_Chiedu
This is really insightful!

Recommendation Letters

• Letter 1: CEO/Co-founder of a YC-backed fintech startup ($4M+ raised) — my current employer
• Letter 2: CEO/Co-founder of a market research startup with global clients — former employer
• Letter 3: CEO/Co-founder of another fintech startup ($4M+ raised) — I worked with them on a contract for a new company he co-founded.

Details from my 1st referee:

• Described me as a foundational engineer working closely with the leadership team
• Highlighted my impact on key product features
• Noted my leadership responsibilities, including:
  • Leading company-wide demos and engineering stand-ups
  • Handling technical recruitment
  • Leading the frontend team
  • Managing team and individual KPIs and conducting quarterly performance reviews
  • Being part of the company’s culture committee

I didn’t include additional letter in MC because I already had the CEO as one of my recommender and has provided the necessary details + another reference letter in OC3 from another head.

**Optional Criteria 2 (OC2) **

Evidence 1 – Stack Overflow Contributions

• 2300+ reputation, multiple badges
• 55+ answers, top answers to questions with over 100K views
• 250+ posts edited, several upvoted comments and feedback
• Ranked #13 in one of Stack Overflow’s review queues (6,000+ reviews)

OC2 was awarded largely on the strength of this evidence.

Evidence 2 – Mentorship via Slack/Online Community

• Feedback mentioned concerns about the structure/formality of this program

Evidence 3 – Contribution to a Tech-led Community

• Also received comments about the community’s contribution to advancing the sector, even though this is a state government-recognised community and has contributed to the establishment of a innovation hub by the Government.

But I got OC2

Optional Criteria 3 (OC3) – Contribution Within Day Job

Evidence 1 – Contribution to Fintech Startup (current role)

• Demonstrated leadership in product delivery and its impact.

Evidence 2 – Reference Letter from a head at the Fintech Startup

Evidence 3 – Contribution to Market Research Startup

• Included evidence of my contribution to the shipped product (product used by Uber & others), and a single-page reference letter from the co-founder.

OC3 passed too

[Akash_Joshi]

I’ve reviewed your Global Talent Visa rejection and appeal draft, and I see several key improvement areas. Based on similar appeals I’ve guided, you need to focus on demonstrating sustained recognition over the five-year period, not just recent achievements. The evaluators specifically noted your award was too recent and not industry-significant enough to prove potential leadership.

For your appeal, strengthen each evidence with clear timelines showing ongoing recognition. Explain how your DevFest talks directly contribute to shaping the tech field, not just sharing information. For your media features, provide metrics about circulation/readership to establish their national significance. Most importantly, connect all your evidence to show a coherent narrative of emerging leadership rather than isolated achievements.

Consider adding recommendation letters from senior industry professionals (VPs, Directors, CXOs) who can validate your leadership potential. In successful appeals I’ve seen, applicants effectively demonstrated how their collective evidence meets the criteria when viewed holistically. Show how your OC2 and OC3 successes combined with strengthened mandatory evidence prove you’re an emerging leader with exceptional promise in digital technology.

[hilory]

Thank you, @Akash_Joshi, I will consider all that you have stated.

[hilory]

Hi @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @gk_shan
I have drafted an appeal for my rejection, and I would like to share it with you before I proceed to submit, just in case you have any feedback for me.

Box 1:

Being selected to speak at DevFest XX, an in-person event organised by a Google-recognised community with over 1,000 participants, is a strong indicator of industry recognition as an emerging leader. The event is regarded by the media as considerably large within Nigeria’s tech ecosystem. As outlined in my evidence, my talk, “From Good to Great: Unlocking Peak Performance in a Startup Environment,” was directly informed by my career experiences in achieving advancing impact through peak performance in real start-up environments, the same impact that was recognised under OC3 for significant contributions to the tech sector. If those contributions are considered sector-advancing, then publicly impacting a wider community of tech professionals through those proven strategies equally demonstrates potential to shape the tech field. The impact of this talk led to my subsequent invitation to speak at DevFest XX. Similarly, my talk, “Understanding AI”, was inspired by Google’s AI series “The Age of A.I.”, a topic the company has invested in globally to help demystify artificial intelligence. In a region like Ado-Ekiti, where AI adoption is still emerging, the session offered practical insights into AI fields and real-world applications. By helping developers begin actively engaging with the technology, the talk contributed meaningfully to advancing understanding of a field that is central to the future of digital innovation.

BOX 2:

My evidence document titled “XXX” outlines how I’ve been continually recognised as a leader at XXX, a nationally prominent, YC-backed fintech company. The evidence demonstrates not just contribution, but early and sustained recognition of my leadership potential. This includes a company-wide email inviting me to a Manager’s Reorientation meeting and another sharing my direct reports’ scorecards, both dated as early as October 2022, reflecting recognition and responsibilities well beyond what is typical for someone at my level of experience. I also included evidence of my involvement in candidate evaluation and leading recruitment, responsibilities typically reserved for current and emerging leaders, affirming trust in my leadership. Additionally, I provided salary evidence showing I currently earn approximately 4x more than the industry average for peers at my level. This serves as another strong indicator of exceptional recognition. Together, these examples represent recognition not just internally but within the context of a nationally recognised company operating at the forefront of Nigeria’s fintech sector. Just as the recognition of an award is often judged by the reputation of the awarding body, leadership recognition within an industry-recognised company like XX should carry comparable weight. This point is further reinforced in the recommendation letter from XX, a respected industry leader, who affirms my recognised leadership.

BOX 3:

XX, a nationally recognised sector event with over 2,000 participants, sponsors such as Mastercard, Uber, and Busha recognised my leadership and entrusted me with a leadership role in facilitating a high-profile experience, reflecting not only the organisers’ confidence but also the trust and recognition from the thousands of attendees from within Nigeria’s tech ecosystem. Notably, I personally led the effort to secure sponsorship from Busha, Nigeria’s leading cryptocurrency company. This demonstrates leadership and confirms that industry-recognised brands value my growing influence, credibility and visibility in the ecosystem, clear markers of emerging industry leadership. Letters from industry leaders XX and XX, CEO of XX (organisers of XX and other major tech events across Africa and London), reinforce this recognition and my influence within the Nigerian tech sector. Additionally, my leadership at XX was acknowledged in Pulse Nigeria, one of the country’s top national media outlets, as shown on page two of my “XXX” evidence. Together, this demonstrates public validation of my leadership within the sector.

BOX 4:

While specific page view metrics for my Vanguard Nigeria feature are not publicly available, Vanguard is one of Nigeria’s most prominent national newspapers. The article, published in the News section, is publicly accessible, and remains part of Nigeria’s national discourse. Since its publication in February 2024, and given the outlet’s national prominence, it is reasonable to conclude that the feature has reached a significant audience, one befitting the recognition of an emerging leader in the tech sector. Importantly, the reach and visibility of this publication directly contributed to my nomination for The XX Awards in July 2024, as evidenced in a timestamped LinkedIn nomination post submitted in my documents. Taken together, my leadership roles, industry recognition, and public contributions provide a clear and consistent picture of my trajectory as a future leader in digital technology. As someone still in the early stages of my career, with growing visibility and influence, I believe the evidence I’ve provided aligns with the expectations set out in Tech Nation’s guidance for the Exceptional Promise route. Being successfully awarded OC2 and OC3, which reflect recognition and impact both within and beyond my day-to-day role, highlights the foundational attributes of a recognised future leader in the field. I respectfully ask that my application be reconsidered based on the overall strength and consistency of the evidence provided.

Please do you have any suggestions?

[hilory]

@hilory

@Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @gk_shan

Please help: @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @gk_shan

[Akash_Joshi]

Hey hilory, without looking at the actual evidences - it’s difficult to judge whether this appeal will go through. You can get your evidences checked by someone - and they’ll be able to guide you. We can only give a cursory glance based on your summaries. Best of luck!

[hilory]

Thank you for your response

[pahuja]

Hi @hilory appeal is fully dependent on the quality of your original application and without going through the application document itself, it won’t be fair to you to get feedback as nobody has seen your actual application content. Reach out to a consultant if you are seeking deeper guidance - feel free to reach out on LinkedIn if you need.

[nabramow]

Hey @hilory how did it go, are you still waiting?

I’m working on my appeal that’s pretty similar to yours, so I’m curious how they received your strategy.

[hilory]

Hi @nabramow,

I got feedback last week, and they decided to uphold the rejection. The response contained similar feedback to the initial rejection. Looking back, I think I didn’t show enough recognition in my evidence of leading growth in a product-led company, but rather for my contributions, alongside a few other missing piece in my MC generally. I will be preparing a new application and reapplying in the coming months.

I think you should try to clarify and contest areas where you believe they made a mistake or misunderstood. If you can also afford the service of a professional, please do so. But remember that your appeal is just as good as your initial application.

[nabramow]

Thanks for your response, and I’m sorry your appeal wasn’t successful. It’s tricky eh, you try to account for one thing and they find something else you didn’t consider, gah. Wishing you luck for the next round!